NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

Nanyang Business School

BH3301 – Employment Law

Seminar 2 – Contract of Employment

Question 1
Critically read the Singapore High Court decision in Kureoka Enterprise Pte Ltd
[1992] and answer the following questions:

1. Briefly state the facts of the case, the relevant issue/s for determination and
the decision.
2. Which case substantially influenced Chan J’s decision?
3. What was Chan J’s most challenging issue, and how did he resolve that
difficulty? Did Chan J have an alternative line of reasoning to support his
decision?
4. In addition to the hostess’ right not to turn up for work (if she so desired),
would the decision be different if a contractual clause in the hostess’
contract required the hostess “to find a suitable replacement” during the
time she was absent from work?
5. What are the implications of Kureoka in the new gig economy in
Singapore?

Question 2
Wash & Go Pte Ltd (hereafter ‘the company’) recently set up a car wash business,
operating in petrol stations island-wide. Aware of Singapore’s protective labour laws
and high labour costs, the company’s business model at the outset was to engage
workers as independent contractors rather than as employees. To that end, they were
advised by their lawyers to adopt written contracts which contained:

 a substitution clause (which allowed the workers to engage others to work on

their behalf), and
 a ‘right to refuse work’ clause which allowed any worker not wishing to come
in to work on a particular day should give adequate notice of his intended
absence and require the worker to find a suitable person to replace him.

The contract also stated that the relationship between the parties was that of principal
and independent contractor. All of the workers (comprising of foreign nationalities)
were aware of these provisions but chose to work personally, sometimes even when
they were sick, because they desperately needed the money to send to their families
back home. Other than the ‘substitution’ and ‘right to refuse work’ clauses, the
company seems to have considerable control over any worker who opted to work.

However, following the fatal accident of one of its workers (who was pulverized by
the car wash machine), MOM has taken the stand that their workers were actually
employees and not independent contractors, and ordered the company to pay
compensation to the deceased worker’s family. The company, on the other hand, has
argued that the contract terms were clear and should prevail so that the deceased
worker was in fact an independent contractor. [Assume that the company is only
legally obliged to make a payout if the worker was an employee].

Required
In light of Singapore’s law and recent developments in UK, is MOM correct about the
status of the deceased worker as an employee?

© Assoc Prof Dennis Ong

Feb 2020